About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN 8
CSPAN2 5
LANGUAGE
English 17
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
services and a surge of combat vets from the iraq and afghanistan wars entering the system, the demand for v.a. health care services has increased dramatically in recent years. this bill provides $58.6 billion for v.a. discretionary funding, $2.3 billion over current funding. the bill also includes $52.5 billion in fy 2013 advanced appropriations for vets' medical care. one of the very few areas in which this bill provides an increase in funding is v.a. medical research, which is $72 million over the budget request to restore funding to the current level. with little room to maneuver on the v.a. side of the ledger, the vast majority of the savings in the bill comes from incrementing or defunding certain military construction projects. the bill provides $13.7 billion for military construction, $1 billion below the request. the milcon reductions in the bill are restricted to the active-duty components. the guard and reserve components, family housing, barrack and other accounts are fully funded at the president's request. every military construction project funded in this bill is authori
drawing down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of the plan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the war is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trillion. and another thing that's scored in that, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way mr. reid scored that, which is ph
. ♪ welcome back. american troops in afghanistan worried about how the debt talks standoff could impact their families with the deal doesn't happen by tuesday and federal employees stop getting paid. soldiers asked admiral mike mullen if they will still get their pay checks. he said honestly he just doesn't know what will happen. >>> mullen was meeting with service men and women at bases in southern afghanistan. >> but the money does seem to be flowing in iraq and in ways that are taking the american taxpayer for a ride. a new report by a special inspector shows that contractors are overbilling the government by as much as 12,000%. in one case a sub contractor charged the pentagon 900 bucks for a $7 switch. and the audit comes as violence in iraq is surging. steve centanni is live for us in washington. so steve, first, what about the allegations that iraq is not any safer than it was a year ago? >> well, heather, that is the claim of the inspector general for iraq reconstruction in a scathing report just released he says "iraq remains an extraordinarily dangerous place to work. it is le
-- the other factor is that we are now drawing down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of the plan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the war is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trillion. and another thing that's scored in that, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way
misspent in iraq and afghanistan over a 10-year period. the "wall street journal" reporting they include $300 million for u.s. agency, agricultural development project with a "burn rate" of million dollars a day that paid afghan farmers to work in their own field, it covers subcontractors in eastern afghanistan, paying 20% of the contract to insurgents for protection and touches on cases where host government was unable to sustain a project like costly water treatment plant in iraq that produced murky water and lacked power and construction of afghan military economy that would cost $40 million to operate and maintain, far beyond what the afghan government could afford. 75% of the total contract dollars spent to support operations in iraq and afghanistan have gone to just 23 major contractors. the federal work force assigned to oversee the contracts hasn't grown in parallel with the massive growth of wartime expenditures. read more about that in the "wall street journal" this morning. one more tweet, if i can, just to finish off the discussion. adding this from darrell price, saying: an
of pride it is as we go across afghanistan and iraq to visit those young guardsmen. truly, they are magnificent in how they serve, what they do. let me tell you, it is good to be in the mile high city. always good to get up on the high ground so you can survey what is going on around you. particularly when you are headed into a conflict. [laughter] conservatives already hold the high ground of ideas, but this conference provides a vantage point with a view of the challenges that lay ahead for us as we go forward in this country. you know, over the next 17 months, i believe america will undergo some tough times as we begin the process of crawling and domesticating a beast known as the federal government. [applause] my concern is not only that washington has intruded upon the rights of the state's and individuals to make decisions about our own health care, our small businesses, our money, but that it is also advocating one of its most -- advocating one of its most basic duties, which is defending our borders. [applause] i always thought that government was supposed to do th
afghanistan is also winding down and that's the trillion dollars they thought they'd save but they don't list anything with the harry reid plan and not to look at entitlements, how could you possibly say we're taking a hard look and making tough decision abouts the future of our -- of the country economically and not look at entitlements when even the president of the united states has had a problem. let's look at john boehner. he says, all right, i'll raise the debt ceiling. this is what i mean by a two phased plan. just a trillion dollars and we'll have $1.2 trillion in cuts by the end of the year. the future cuts will be commissioned and sent up after they commission a bipartisan panel to decide, you know, republicans or democrats to decide which will be cut and what shouldn't. >> and apparently, it would be along the lines of the cut, cap and balance as you can see right there. here is something that speaker boehner said why he cannot support the democrats' plan. he said the administration says they need all of the increase up front so he doesn't have to deal with this until after the ele
down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of thelan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the w is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trlion. and another thing that's scored in tt, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way mr. reid scored that, which is phantom money,
. $2.70 trillion in spending cuts, including money saved from ending the war is in iraq and afghanistan. chuck schumer and senator reid spoke about the proposal with reporters for about 25 minutes. >> senators durbin and moynihan are on an airplane. unfortunately, they are not here. but they are on their way. i spent all weekend trying to work something out with republicans. instead of moving forward, we went backwards. one example -- our spending this year for the military is that $700 billion. that is more money for the military than the rest of the country's put together. you would think that in this debate that we have, they could chip in a few bucks to cut some spending. this weekend, the republicans wanted to raise spending. something modest, something the pentagon could live with. over the weekend, lo and behold, more funding for the pentagon. so, rather than trying to work with us on something as obvious as this to save money, they went their own direction. the economy has been forced to have the same debate on the same subject a few months from now. republicans and their short-
wars in iraq and afghanistan and participate in the nato exercise in libya. that's pretty expensive undertaking. we know that that has gone up 84%, military spending, in the last ten years, gone up 84%. we know at the same period of time that spending on mandatory programs -- that would be like social security, medicare, medicaid, agriculture payments, veterans payments. spending for those payments over the last ten years has gone up 32%. and we know that the rest of the budget, the so-called domestic discretionary spending which would include things like building highways, keeping federal prisons open, providing pell grants to college students, giving children from poor families early childhood education, putting money at the national institutes of health for madam chair research. that's one section of the budget. it comprises 12% of our budget. in the last ten years that part of our budget has gone up zero percent. no increase in spending in that section. most of our spending goes into the military, 84% increase over ten years, and mandatory programs, 32% over ten years. the bigge
billion in iraq and afghanistan to train the security forces, less than $10 billion to retrain our work force for the jobs of the future. well, mr. president, i see others have come on the floor. i'll wrap this up. deficit reduction is important. i'm not saying it isn't. but it is not the single-most important thing right now. the single-most important thing is to put people back to work. that will, as senator wyden said earlier, start to create the demand. it will spur more private investment as the federal government begins to invest in the future of this country. that's where we ought to be focusing on. once we get the wheels going again, once we get people back to work and the economy start to to -- starts to grow, that's when we start to reduce the deficit. to just focus on deficit reduction right now to the exclusion of putting people back to work reminds me of when doctors used to put leaches on people who were ill. it only made them more ill because it drained more blood out of their system. and most times proved fatal, as it did to our first president, george washington. our ur
with a situation like 9/11 or the war in iraq or afghanistan are terrorism? what if there is unforeseen event that would force government to spend more money than it takes an? guest: the legislation would have to be written to be including situations when we get like that. i am no expert on the u.s. economy so i want to put that disclaimer out there right now. but we are spending more than we're taking in and it is not sustainable. we cannot continue down this path. when you have the medicare board of trustees coming out in the month of may and releasing a report that says, if medicare is not reformed in 2024, it will be bankrupt, it is irresponsible for washington not to do anything about their when you know you are facing this problem. we need to deal with that. we need to do some entitlement reform across the board. we cannot balance the u.s. budget by cutting discretionary spending. host: i realize that this is still coming together so the information continues to evolve. but based on what we hear this morning, it is a $1.4 trillion increase in the debt limit immediately. based on misinfo
and afghanistan, saving $1 trillion in the process. our troops in the middle east deserve our admiration and praise for so successfully carrying out their missions. we must, however, continue to press for a strategy that will bring our troops home as soon as we safely can. the reid deficit plan would find an additional $40 billion in savings by cutting fraud and abuse in tax compliance and a number of non-defense federal programs and $60 billion in other savings, including cutting unnecessary spending on agricultural subsidies and auctioning off electromagnetic spectrum that the government currently holds. finally, by cutting the government by over $2 trillion, we'll have to borrow less money than anticipated and that will save an additional $400 million -- sorry, $400 billion in projected interest costs. in total, the senate democratic plan on which we will vote would cut the deficits by $2.7 trillion over the next ten years. while senator reid's proposal would not address the tax gimmicks and loopholes throughout our tax code that help favor the well-connected, this omission does not m
and distinction in iraq and afghanistan would feel that way to draw back on the benefits that they earned. during the bush years our country spent $1.5 trillion in iraq and national defense. the turnaround in our budget picture during the bush years was remarkable. in october of 2008, cnn reported that the debt clock had run out of numbers. the debt clock actually had exceeded 13 digits that had been allotted to the clock and had to be revised. according to one report at the end of the bush term, the number of jobs in the nation increased by 2%. that's the lowest at anytime since data began to be collected seven decades ago. gross domestic product was at the lowest pace since the truman administration, and the price that america has paid for the theology that suggested during all of those years that tax cuts pay for themselves. you can't find a mainstream economist in this town today who will acknowledge that argument. and yet we hear now more tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. by the time that the bush years ended, the debt had increased to $10.6 trillion, setting a record for any administra
in afghanistan alone to prop up a corrupt and incompetent karzai government. how about ending wasteful subsidies to big agriculture companies? how about asking billionaire hedge fund managers to pay the same tax rates as their secretaries? the truth is that the best way to deal with our long-term fiscal situation is to grow our economy. that means creating jobs and putting people back to work. the last election i thought was about jobs. we haven't talked about jobs at all since the new republican majority became -- came to power. that means investing in things like education and infrastructure and green technology and medical research. that's the kind of economic future the american people deserve. the boehner default plan would take us exactly in the wrong direction and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, as i listen to my friend from the other side
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)